Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Amazon's Cloud Now 1% of Internet Traffic

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the cloud-internet-convergence dept.

Cloud 71

An anonymous reader writes "A Wired story claims Amazon's cloud now hosts enough companies and traffic to generate 1% of all Internet traffic (and visits from 1/3 of daily Internet users). An amazing number if true. And a little scary for one company to host this much cloud infrastructure."

cancel ×

71 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Akamai was there years ago (4, Interesting)

ProfessionalTech (2620889) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723927)

And a little scary for one company to host this much cloud infrastructure.

Right. Akamai delivers around 20% of internet's traffic, is basically cloud content provider and has been so since the 90's. There's still long way for Amazon to go.

Re:Akamai was there years ago (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724047)

Except that Akamai mostly deals with static content. Distribution of images, video and static pages. While Amazon allows you to host web applications on their platform. Plus you can rent out computing time for non-internet related purposes. Quite different services as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Akamai was there years ago (4, Informative)

ProfessionalTech (2620889) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724109)

And delivering static content (images, videos, software executables and patches and so on) is what makes most of the traffic on Amazon's network, so thinking about non-internet related purposes on a story about how much traffic Amazon has is a moot point. Besides, Akamai's CDN and the availability of their network in different parts of the world is much more impressive than Amazon's.

Re:Akamai was there years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39727755)

...thinking about non-internet related purposes on a story about how much traffic Amazon has is a moot point.

Incorrect usage of "moot point".

moot point (plural moot points)
An issue that is subject to, or open for discussion or debate; originally, one to be definitively determined by an assembly of the people..

Re:Akamai was there years ago (1)

drkstr1 (2072368) | more than 2 years ago | (#39729107)

You left off the second definition on that page.

2) (US) An issue regarded as potentially debatable, but no longer practically applicable. Although the idea may still be worth debating and exploring academically, and such discussion may be useful for addressing similar issues in the future, the idea has been rendered irrelevant for the present issue.

I have only ever heard it used in this form...

Akamai doesn't generate traffic (4, Interesting)

CaptainNerdCave (982411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724157)

Akamai is like a company that handles the pedestrian and motor traffic, they don't actually generate anything. Their business model is designed around traffic management and _content_delivery_.

Amazon, Google, et al are generating the traffic.

Re:Akamai doesn't generate traffic (0)

ProfessionalTech (2620889) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724285)

Both Amazon and Google (YouTube for the most part) are also business models designed around traffic management and content delivery. They don't generate that much traffic themselves. I know Amazon the store site is quite horribly coded, but I doubt it still generates 1% of internet traffic :-P

Re:Akamai doesn't generate traffic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39724303)

Amazon, Google, et al are generating the traffic.

So, AWS is full of Amazon's products, applications and content?

You can make a case for Google - but Amazon's definitely in the same general category as Akamai. It's not their shit that's being spewed all over the Internets; they're merely delivering the content of their customers.

Re:Akamai doesn't generate traffic (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#39731697)

The diff between AWS (amazon's web services) and Akamai is that AWS provides processing substrates integrated with CDN functionality.
Akamai mostly does CDN. This means that AWS has access both to the bits and the "metadata" (DBs, mappers, reducers, binaries) its clients manage and Akamai only accesses the generated bits.
AWS is a much more vertical integration than Akamai, comparable - with a bit of imagination - to Apple vs Microsoft.

Re:Akamai was there years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39724213)

Well, if 1999 is the 90s...

Re:Akamai was there years ago (0)

ProfessionalTech (2620889) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724319)

Well, if 1999 is the 90s...

Yes, it is. Besides, Akamai is founded in 1998.

Re:Akamai was there years ago (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724269)

Akamai is a cloud content provider, much the same as my squid proxy server is a cloud content provider.

Re:Akamai was there years ago (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39725903)

Right. Akamai delivers around 20% of internet's traffic, is basically cloud content provider and has been so since the 90's.

LOL, is "multiple regional cache servers" now "the cloud"?

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you, I've just never seen it distilled quite down to its essence like that.

Re:Akamai was there years ago (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39726353)

Right. Akamai delivers around 20% of internet's traffic, is basically cloud content provider and has been so since the 90's.

LOL, is "multiple regional cache servers" now "the cloud"?

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you, I've just never seen it distilled quite down to its essence like that.

It is the cloud (which is an incredibly over-used term).

Just because it isn't providing actual off-load of compute power in terms of processes running "in the cloud" versus at an origin doesn't mean it isn't the cloud. Akamai provides storage and routing logic (through several means) outside of a single customer - it certainly is "the cloud".

Re:Akamai was there years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39729625)

Bit of a tangent, but I learned today that one of the two guys who co-founded Akamai was on one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center on 9/11.

LOL, Raise their taxes (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723949)

After all, they ARE the 1%

Re:LOL, Raise their taxes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39724031)

mod parent funny

Get ready for it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39724037)

Dear Amazon.com customer:

Fred, we noticed from your surfing history that you recently viewed Dinosaurs doomed by laying eggs? [slashdot.org]

You may also be interested in this exciting product [amazon.com] !

Sincerely,

Jeff B. and Amazon.com

Re:Get ready for it (2)

halfEvilTech (1171369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724089)

This already happens due to most people not disabling scripts on most sites. My wife has an amazon account and often gets offer emails on products availible related to things she has been looking at or searching for.

so wouldn't be anything new.

Re:Get ready for it (1)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724207)

I suspect it's more due to third-party tracking cookies. The Collusion add-on for Firefox [mozilla.org] was mentioned on Slashdot recently. It shows very clearly how the various sites you visit are connected.

Re:Get ready for it (4, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724147)

Dear Amazon.com customer:

Fred, we noticed from your surfing history that you recently viewed

More likely:

"Dear Amazon.com customer:
Bob, we noticed from your surfing history that you recently viewed porn.

You may also be interested in: more porn.

Sincerely, Jeff B. and Amazon.com"

The advantage of that message is that you don't even really need to check the user's history.

1% is "a little scary"? (5, Insightful)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724055)

What's scary is that the author thinks 1% is scary. Let's talk again if they hit 10%.

Re:1% is "a little scary"? (2)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724149)

any time someone dares to serve more of the internet than google its scary

Re:1% is "a little scary"? (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#39731715)

Well, Google most definitely is scary, so I would go with Yes!

Re:1% is "a little scary"? (1)

allo (1728082) | more than 2 years ago | (#39735223)

> serve more of the internet than google
implies google serves less than 50% of the internet ......

Re:1% is "a little scary"? (2)

hemo_jr (1122113) | more than 2 years ago | (#39725319)

It may be large enough to make the MPAA notice. And since the only reason that kind of traffic is generated is copyrighted material. And all copyrighted material on the Internet must have a significant component owned by the MPAA,

So Jeff Bezos should be getting smeared as a pirate soon. And his local swat team should be visiting him, along with the prerequisite FBI, ICE and Homeland Security thugs.

So, ya, it could be a bit scary.

Well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39724063)

Still less than any major porn site...

Re:Well.. (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724183)

Still less than any major porn site...

Any major porn site moves 1% of internet's traffic?

How many major porn sites are there? I hope it's less than 99, otherwise I've spent years in slashdot without figuring how to activate the porn opt-in.

Re:Well.. (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724299)

You'd seriously be surprised how much the porn industry has died down on the net, with the economy crunch.

Re:Well.. (1)

PerfectionLost (1004287) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724735)

Don't forget that porn sites use CDNs and clouds--some of them may use the amazon cloud as well...

Re:Well.. (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#39731717)

Don't forget that porn sites use CDNs and clouds--some of them may use the amazon cloud as well...

Amazon Elastic Porn & Stalk?

So when they break everything goes faster? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39724083)

So when they break everything goes faster?

Re:So when they break everything goes faster? (1)

christianT (604736) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724235)

Not really since it is only 1%

Does the Kindle use the cloud? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724119)

When I use its "experimental" browser to access the web, is it using the Amazon cloud or going direct to the net? It is unclear.

(Note: I'm talking about the regular kindle, not the Kindle fire with its Silk browser.)

Re:Does the Kindle use the cloud? (2)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724233)

the web lives on amazon's cloud. a lot of websites are stored on amazon's cloud to be closer to customers.

the idea that you visit a site by going to someone's server is quite quaint and outdated

Re:Does the Kindle use the cloud? (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724253)

according to things I've read, it's "enhanced" by the "Amazon Cloud". I'm willing to bet it's proxied, just to make sure you're not using the AT&T 3G for anything too personal.

Re:Does the Kindle use the cloud? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724775)

>>>according to things I've read, it's "enhanced" by the "Amazon Cloud".

That's true for Amazon Silk on the Fire tablet. It operates similar to Opera Turbo where the browser fetches pages from the Opera server and then downloads a compressed images/text/HTML.

But my older Kindle doesn't come with Silk. Its browser is called "experimental" and operates at 3G speeds (about the same as my home DSL ~700 kbit/s).

Re:Does the Kindle use the cloud? (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724877)

The Kindle Fire does, other don't.
However all digital books and music, IIRC, that you purchase from amazon are on the "cloud"

Re:Does the Kindle use the cloud? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39727915)

So far I've not bought anything for my kindle... I just copy-over plain text books.
Amazon must be annoyed.
Heh heh. :-)

not true (1)

twistedcubic (577194) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724145)

It would be scary if it were true. But it ain't true. Nevertheless, GREAT topic for discussion!

Bad Bots (2)

Bill Dimm (463823) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724185)

Is it just my imagination, or is there a huge amount of traffic from AWS coming from bots that don't respect robots.txt?

Re:Bad Bots (2)

tool462 (677306) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724333)

I was gonna say...

Is this Cloud to Cloud, or Cloud to ground traffic?

Re:Bad Bots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39724719)

What incentive do they have to respect robots.txt?

hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39724267)

Say, I hear a fog horn, "boooooooooorr-rrrinnngggggggggg"

I for one., (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724281)

...welcome our new overlord, Mr. Bezos.

Fixed that... (4, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724329)

"And a little scary for one company (other than Google or Apple) to host this much cloud infrastructure."
 
There, fixed that for you.

Can't be true (1)

necro81 (917438) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724339)

1% is far, far, too low a number. Surely the editors left out a zero or two. After all, according to the all-wise prognosticators at Wired, Amazon owns the internet [wired.com] .

Netflix? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39724355)

But Netflix is said to use 32% of bandwidth (http://on.msnbc.com/HS3Or5), and Netflix is hosted by AWS, isn't it

Re:Netflix? (3, Insightful)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724451)

I seriously doubt this: Netflix isn't available in most countries outside USA, an I'm pretty sure Asia adds up far more traffic than USA.

Re:Netflix? (4, Informative)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724563)

netflix is hosted by level 3 inside the ISP's networks

they use amazon for the authentication part

Re:Netflix? (2)

FlashBIOS (665492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39730113)

Really? Are you sure?

Netflix used to serve movies using IPv6 according to our college's traffic logs (if fact, they were about the only IPv6 traffic out there at the time). They one day it stopped. Around that time, news sites starting reporting that Netflix now streams from Amazon. Amazon doesn't support IPv6.

Close 'em down! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39724619)

There must be some pirated material on those servers.

For those that don't know AWS (Amazon Web Services (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39724625)

Not surprising and not scary..

For those that don't know AWS (Amazon Web Services) is who is hosting Netflix...

I'm actually surprised that it isn't more. Does Netflix use anybody else? Or does this tell us that Netflix is really not the bandwidth hog that everyone says and is using less than 1% of internet traffic since AWS obviously has more customers than just Netflix

"Server" Costs (3, Informative)

Bigbutt (65939) | more than 2 years ago | (#39724685)

I spec'd out a cloud server a few months ago to replace my physical server and the yearly cost of the Amazon cloud server that matched my physical box was just about double (it cost more to get a 64bit system vs a 32bit system).

[John]

Re:"Server" Costs (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39725503)

Yes. Using a Cloud for 1:1 replacement of a physical hardware is silly. The point is to use the Cloud to flexibly manage your instances I.e. if you're hosting a website, you can spin up more instances during your busy hours, and shut them down again when it's quite: unlike physical hardware, which would sit idle during the quite periods.

Re:"Server" Costs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39726241)

They include some redundancy, the internet connection, power, and AC. A single server probably won't match their uptime either unless you have it at a co-lo facility.

Re:"Server" Costs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39726731)

They include...the internet connection

Cloud providers almost universally charge you for outbound bandwidth, so his figures probably didn't include that particular cost.

The rest of your items are spot on though, and let's not forget that there's no service contract to pay for or have expire after three years, either. Most people overlook these "hidden" costs when it comes to physical hardware.

sex with Sa NIGgA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39724845)

judging by my firewall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39725271)

EC2 is a haven for port scanners, sip hackers, spiders, bots and generally malicious traffic, coupled with a woeful abuse reporting system means they are blacklisted here

go on dig through your logs and see how much bandwidth "EC2LinkFinder" takes

LOTC (1)

dvazquez (1020429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39725737)

One cloud to rule them all...

Accelerated Down Time (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39725815)

Well, then. If 2011 is any indication, then Amazon's greater share of Net traffic should INCREASE the average amount of downtime for webservers.

All centralization of the internet equals a decrease in quality and reliability.

Re:Accelerated Down Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39726159)

So, you're claiming that it'd be better for businesses to run physical servers in their office than run virtual servers in a cloud of ~450k machines spread across god-knows-how-many dedicated datacenters? Even if something knocked down the environmental controls, backup power and redundant connections, it'd take a negligable amount of time to move a virtual server to a location that's still up.

Re:Accelerated Down Time (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39728111)

"you're claiming that it'd be better for businesses to run physical servers in their office than run virtual servers in a cloud of ~450k machines spread across god-knows-how-many dedicated datacenters?"

Yep. The numbers work out that way.

Keep in mind that no matter how many datacenters and how many machines, Amazon was DOWN for quite a long time in 2011. (And, although this is only an single anecdote: all the vaunted redundancy of AWS did not save the site of one of my customers when an Amazon server suffered a hardware failure a few months ago. Yes, there were local backups, but Amazon was completely useless and unhelpful in the situation and newer data was lost from the database.)

For that matter, Microsoft's cloud services also went down in 2011, and so did Google. All of the major services except perhaps Akamai, I believe.

While your examples are internally distributed, in the broader view of the internet they still represent concentrated-point-of-failure bottlenecks.

On the other hand, our cheaper company and personal servers were down less often, and never for more than a few hours.

I am all for cloud computing, for certain uses. And I will start doing it... when the reliability numbers actually show that it is justified.

Want scary numbers? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39726069)

What about how much percent of all internet trafic goes thru companies based on a single country where by law (present or in a near future) must handle in a silver plate all their customer/visitors data to the government, and block whatever the government says, and so on.

Instagram (1)

tmarthal (998456) | more than 2 years ago | (#39726085)

I believe that Instagram is 100% hosted on AWS EC2 instances and S3. We'll see if they move to Facebook's data centers.

The $1B valuation of that company would not have been possible without using Amazon as their provider. Amazon is definitely doing something right.

Scary part of the whole thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39727009)

Amazon hosts huge numbers of corporate cloud infrastructure on fake Cisco equipment bought from china...(this was indicated in another article)..How easy it would be to cause it all to crash...I for one think security is still too weak to host corporations on the internet, makes them too easy a target.

Wait until Apple... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39727967)

Gets it massive datacenter running. Considering iDevice users consume the most media....

At what % (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39728341)

When does the %s get high enough to no longer qualify as 'cloud' and instead multiple single points of failure services.

Webbugs in the Cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39729159)

Some advertising trackers are hosted in the Cloud., once I added them to my hosts file I've noticed a marked speedup in loading pages, less `waiting on ...'

Large impact (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39732127)

I work for a large network service provider and we have seen the impact of AWS outages/impacts. A blip in their service doesn't cause a 1% "problem", it can impact 30-40% of internet browsing due to the sheer number of sites that either directly rely on content hosted on AWS/Route53 or, more importantly, via link sharing like the ubiquitous "share on facebook/twitter/linkedin/reddit/etc" buttons, or the "login with facebook/etc" services, some of which have ties through AWS. So while all the content on a site may load, parts of the page may be broken or timing out, which can cause a host problems for browsing traffic.

There are a lot of back end interconnections that link sites together that go very unnoticed, and threaten to impact a large portion of the web. Look at the number of sites that load content from Google. If they have a service problem with their ad service, every page that needs that content will, at the very least, load slowly while that content times out.

When the Juniper BGP bug hit last Novemeber (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/110711-internet-outage-252851.html) there were large swaths of the internet that became unavailable, including AWS. The impact to browsing was widespread, not just because of content being directly unavailable, but because of these back end relationships.

My focus is on DNS, and the impact we saw was tremendous. Because of the AWS (and a couple other major DNS providers) impact, DNS server threads were getting tied up waiting for answers, causing other queries to time out for good content, severely impacting all Internet traffic.

It's a very tenuous system, and it only takes a little bit of instability to shake things up.

Does Amazon ban porn? (1)

allo (1728082) | more than 2 years ago | (#39735159)

Or why is it such a small number?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?